t^mm 


OUTER   BELT  OF  FOREST   PRESERVES  AND   PARKWAYS 
FOR  CHICAGO  AND   COOK  COUNTY. 


Address  by  President  Henry  G.  Foreman 
To  the  Outer  Belt  Park  Commission, 
Delivered  on  April  21,   1904. 
Reprinted,  by  authority,  from  the 
Official  Proceedings  of  the  County  Board. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive.;  ~ 
in  2012  with  funding  from 
CARLI:  Consortium  of  Academic  and  Research  Libraries  in  Illinois 


http://archive.org/details/outerbeltofforesOOfore 


OUTER   BELT   OF   FOREST   PRESERVES   AND   PARKWAYS 

FOR   CHICAGO   AND   COOK   COUNTY. 


Address  by  President  Henry  G.  Foreman 
To  the  Outer  Belt  Park  Commission, 
Delivered  on  April  21,  1904. 
Reprinted,  by  authority,  from  the 
Official  Proceedings  of  the  County  Board. 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  OUTER   BELT   PARK   COMMISSION. 


Representing  City  and  County. 


Mr.  Daniel  H.  Burnham, 

Mr.  John  P.  Wilson, 

Mr.  John  J.  Mitchell, 

Mr.  Charles  L.  Hutchinson, 

Judge  P.  S.  Grosscup, 

Mr.  John  Barton  Payne, 

Dr.  J.  B.  Murphy, 

Mr.  E.  A.  Cummings, 

Mr.  D.  H.  Perkins, 

Mr.  W.  H.  Miller. 


Representing  City  of  Chicago. 


Mayor  Carter  H.  Harrison, 
Ald.  Ernst  F.  Herrmann, 
Ald.  L.  P.  Friestedt, 
Ald.  D.  V.  Harkin, 
Ald.  J.  J.  Bradley, 


Representing  South  Park  Commissioners. 


Commissioner  Lyman  A.  Walton, 
Commissioner  William  Best, 
Commissioner  Jefferson  Hodgkins. 


Representing  West  Park  Commissioners. 


Commissioner  E.  H.  Peters, 
Commissioner  Fred  A.  Bangs, 
Commissioner  G.  J.  Norden. 


Representing  Lincoln   Park   Commissioners. 


Commissioner  F.  T.  Simmons, 
Commissioner  F.  H.  Gansbergen, 
Commissioner  James  H.  Hirsch. 


Representing  County  Board. 


Commissioner  A.  C.  Boeber. 
Commissioner  E.  K.  Walker, 
Commissioner  Joseph  Carolan, 
Commissioner  Joseph  E.  Flanagan, 
President  Henry  G.  Foreman. 


OUTER    BELT    PARK    COMMISSION. 

President  Henry  G.  Foreman,  of  the  County  Board,  recom- 
mended in  a  message  submitted  on  August  3,  1903,  that  the  Board 
authorize  the  appointment  of  an  Outer  Belt  Park  Commission. 

On  the  same  date  the  Board  by  resolution  granted  the  author- 
ity for  the  appointment  of  a  Commission  of  twenty-nine  members 
to  take  up  the  matter  of  providing  a  satisfactory  system  of  out- 
lying preserves  and  connecting  parkways  and  to  do  all  things 
necessary  to  accomplish  that  end. 

The  numerical  composition  of  the  Commission  was  pre- 
scribed as  folloivs:  Ten  citizens  representing  the  city  and  the 
county,  the  Mayor  of  Chicago  and  four  aldermen,  three  members 
of  each  park  commission,  and  four  members  and  the  President  of 
the  County  Board. 

President  Foreman  on  January  18,  1904,  made  the  appoint- 
ments and  they  were  concurred  in  by  the  County  Board. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Commission,  held  on  April  21, 
1904,  Henry  G.  Foreman  was  chosen  temporary  chairman  and 
William  C.  Graves,  temporary  secretary,  and  the  chair  was  au- 
thorized to  appoint  a  Committee  on  Organization,  the  chair  to  be 
a  member  thereof.  A  motion  zvas  passed  that  the  County  Board 
be  requested  to  print  the  address  of  the  president  in  pamphlet 
form  for  general  distribution.  The  County  Board  on  April  25 
ordered  the  address  so  printed. 


ADDRESS  BY  HENRY  G.  FOREMAN 

PRESIDENT    BOARD    OF   COMMISSIONERS   OF    COOK    COUNTY 

DELIVERED    BEFORE 

THE    OUTER    BELT    PARK    COMMISSION 

ON   APRIL  21,    1904 


Season  of  tree- 
planting. 


Inspiration  in 
Arbor  Day. 


Chicago,  April  21,  1904. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Outer  Belt  Park  Commission  of  the  County  of  Cook' 
and  the  City  of  Chicago: 

Gentlemen, —  In  calling  this  Commission  to  order  it  seems  appropriate 
to  refer  to  the  season  of  tree  planting,  now  at  hand,  for  to-morrow  is  Arbor 
Day  in  Illinois.  This  is  a  fitting  time  to  take  np  the  work  of  preserving  the 
forests  which  nature  has  made  near  Chicago  as  reservoirs  of  health,  com- 
fort and  pleasure  for  the  population  of  our  great  city. 

The  fact  that  there  is  an  Arbor  Day  in  all  American  states,  save  one, 
argues  eloquently  for  the  preservation  of  grown  trees.  We  should  receive 
inspiration  from  a  season  set  aside  for  work  intimately  associated  with  our 
special  mission. 


Recreation  area 
for  a  great  city. 


Conditions  to  be 
ameliorated. 


A  Serious  Problem. 

But  this  mission  looks  far  beyond  the  mere  sentiment  of  staying  the 
woodman's  ax.  It  lays  before  us  more  than  a  problem  in  forestry,  important 
as  that  in  itself  is.  We  are  called  upon  to  create  a  system  of  outlying  pre- 
serves —  wooded  and  open  —  for  the  use  of  a  cosmopolitan  population, 
living  in  a  commercially  strategic  point,  and  destined,  probably,  to  grow 
into  the  greatest  assemblage  of  human  beings  on  the  Western  hemisphere. 
Possibly  Chicago  some  day  will  be  the  largest  city  in  the  world. 

Facing  the  reasonable  assurance  of  at  least  a  much  larger  population 
than  we  have  to-day,  the  problem  of  providing  satisfactory  outdoor  recre- 
ation for  the  people  of  the  greater  city  becomes  indeed  intricate  and  serious. 
It  calls  for  careful  thought.  We  must  realize  that  unsatisfactory  conditions 
demanding  prompt  attention  for  the  health,  contentment  and  happiness  of 


a  restless,  ambitious,  crowding  people  are  interwoven  in  the  problem  and 
must  be  met  and  ameliorated. 

So,  at  the  start,  let  us  take  a  broad  view  of  our  task.    Let  us  realize  how   Work  for  future 

generations. 

grave  a  problem  we  face.  Then  let  us  soberly  set  about  to  solve  it,  remem- 
bering that  we  are  working  not  merely  for  the  present  population  —  for 
ourselves  and  our  children  —  but  for  future  generations. 

Chicago's  Phenomenal  Growth. 

Chicago's  phenomenal  growth,  I  believe,  warrants  this  commission  in  Decennial  com- 

01  °  _  ,  parisons. 

providing  an  extensive  outer  park  area.  To  illustrate  the  relative  magnitude 
of  this  growth  I  have  gone  back  to  1830  and  made  decennial  comparisons  of 
the  populations  of  four  large  American  cities  up  to  1900,  and  carried  the 
comparison  on  to  1903. 

In   1830  New  York  had  a  population  of  202,589,  Chicago  about  forty  Population  figures. 
persons,  Philadelphia  161,410  and  Boston  61,392.     In  1903  New  York  had 
3,716,139,   Chicago    1,873,880,   Philadelphia    1,367,716  and   Boston   594,618. 
The  figures  for  1903  are  the  estimates  of  the  Federal  Census  office  and  may 
be  accepted  as  conservative. 

The  city  directory  estimates,  which  usually  are  made  along  generous 
lines,  indicate  the  1903  population  in  these  four  cities,  as  follows :  New 
York,  3,583,930  (less  than  the  Federal  estimate)  ;  Chicago,  2,231,000;  Phil- 
adelphia, 1,500,000  and  Boston,  603,183. 

From   1840,  when  Chicago  was  well  established  with  a  population  of   Percentages  of 

^    '  o  1      ir  increase. 

4,470  (having  been  incorporated  in  1837),  to  1903  this  city's  percentage  of 
increase  in  population,  based  on  directory  figures  for  1903,  was  4981 1.  For 
the  same  period  New  York's  percentage,  similarly  based  as  to  1903,  was 
1046,  Philadelphia  581,  and  Boston  546.  On  the  Federal  estimate  for  1903 
Chicago's  percentage  of  growth  was  41754;  New  York's  1088;  Philadel- 
phia's 521  and  Boston's  537. 

This  is  indeed  a  tremendous  growth  for  Chicago  even  on  the  conserva- 
tive Federal  population  estimate. 

Lags  Behind  in  Park  Growth. 

But,  while  Chicago  from   1840  to   1903  has  shown  an  enormous  per-   ^.^e0"10113'6 
centage  of  increase  in  population,  has  it  made  a  proportionate  increase  in 
applied  park  facilities  for  its  great  population  ?     Emphatically  no. 

In  1869  the  act  creating  the  present  park  system  was  passed  by  the  City  comparisons 
General  Assembly.  By  1880  the  ragged  city  system  had  been  improved  and 
increased  till  there  were  2,000  acres.  In  1880  Philadelphia  led  American 
cities  in  park  area,  having  2,819  acres.  Chicago  was  second.  New  York 
was  third  with  1,007.25  and  Boston  had  233  acres.  In  1903  Chicago,  includ- 
ing authorized  additions,  had  3,174  acres;  Philadelphia,  3,503  acres;  New 
York,  8,074  acres  and  Boston  12,878  acres. 

Chicago  during  the  period   1880-190?    usinsr  the  Federal  estimate  for  Comparative  Per- 

o  o  i  so'  o  centage   of 

1903,  increased  in  population  272.40  per  cent,  but  in  park  area  increased   increase, 
only  58.70  per  cent.     For  the  same  period  Philadelphia  increased  61.46  per 
cent  in  population  and  24.26  per  cent  in  park  area  ;    New  York  increased 


Behind  Boston 
and  New  York. 


208.07  per  cent  in  population  and  701.25  per  cent  in  park  area;   and  Boston 
increased  63.88  per  cent  in  population  and  5,427.0  per  cent  in  park  area. 

So,  while  Chicago  has  exceeded  greatly  the  other  three  cities  in  popu- 
lation growth,  it  has  fallen  far  behind  Boston  and  New  York  in  the 
percentage  of  park  growth. 


Broader 
parison. 


Position   in   ij 


Seventh  place 
to-day. 


Authorized  addi- 
tions included. 


Park    acreage    of 
eight  American 
cities. 


Chicago  Parks  and  Those  of  Other  Cities. 

But  to  take  up  the  comparison  on  a  broader  scale,  I  have  made  a  careful 
investigation  of  recreation  areas  in  the  leading  cities  of  the  United  States 
and  have  put  the  results  into  comparative  tables,  so  that  we  may  see  at  a 
glance  how  Chicago  stands  in  regard  to  parks  when  placed  side  by  side  with 
other  American  cities. 

The  showing  is  not  flattering  to  Chicago. 

In  1880,  eleven  years  after  the  present  system  of  parks  and  boulevards 
was  projected,  this  city,  in  the  acre  area  of  the  system,  stood,  as  stated,  next 
to  Philadelphia,  which  then  had  the  largest  acreage  of  parks  of  any  city  in 
the  Union.  At  that  time  Chicago  in  population  was  fourth  among  the  cities 
of  the  United  States,  being  exceeded  by  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Brook- 
lyn.    So  in  1880  Chicago  stood  well  in  regard  to  parks. 

But  how  does  it  stand  to-day?  While  our  city  for  some  time  has  been 
second  in  population,  in  the  acre  area  of  its  parks  it  has  slipped  back  to 
seventh  place  among  the  cities  of  the  United  States. 

That  we  may  put  our  best  foot  forward,  I  have  included,  in  the  Chicago 
total,  additions  now  being  made  or  authorized,  to  the  system  on  the  three 
sides  of  the  city. 

Here  are  the  cities  and  the  figures,  collected  from  data  furnished  in 
1903  by  Park  Boards  in  the  various  localities: 

City.  Acre  Area  of  Parks. 

i  Boston    12,878 

2  New  York 8,074 

3  Los  Angeles 3-737 

4  Newark,  New  Jersey,  and  environs 3-54§ 

5  Philadelphia    3.5°3 

6  San   Francisco    3-41 1 

7  Chicago    3-1/4 

8  Washington    2.91 1 


Chicago  next  to 
New   York. 


Second  in  Miles  of  Boulevards. 
These  figures  do  not  include  boulevards.  Chicago  is  the  second  city  in 
this  respect,  having  forty-eight  miles  of  such  drives,  while  New  York  is  first 
with  sixty-one  miles.  New  Orleans  has  forty-one  miles,  Boston  thirty- four 
miles  and  Minneapolis  twenty-seven  miles.  Other  cities  have  shorter 
systems. 


Parks   are   for  the 
people. 


Chicago  in  Test  as  to  Usefulness. 

But,  acreage  of  parks  and  miles  of  boulevards  do  not  set  a  fair  standard 
for  measuring  the  effectiveness  of  open  air  recreation  facilities.  Parks  are 
not  made  for  cities.  They  are  made  for  the  people  who  live  in  cities.  Parks 
are  useful  in  their  application  to  human  needs. 


Let  us  then  make  the  crucial  test  of  the  utility  of  Chicago's  park  system  f^"*1  test  of 
as  compared  with  the  utility  of  systems  in  other  localities.     Let  us  figure  the 
number  of  inhabitants  to  each  acre  of  park  in  several  American  cities. 

For  this  comparison  I  wrote  to  the  proper  officials  in  nineteen  cities  fndcago  at  the 
known  to  have  large  park  area.     When  the  figures  were  received  and  tabu- 
lated   Chicago   was    found    at    the   bottom    of    the    list  —  nineteenth  —  and 
eighth  below  the  general  average  for  all. 

Here  is  the  table  with  population  on  the  basis  of  the  Federal  estimate 
for  1903: 

City.  Inhabitants  to  each  Acre  of  Park. 

-.«--,  r.  Inhabitants    to 

i  Menden,  Conn 25 . 1               park  acre. 

2  Los  Angeles,   Cal 31.6 

3  Lynn,   Mass 34.6 

4  Boston,   Mass 46 . 2 

5  Newark,  N.  J.,  Oranse  and  E.  Orange 88.8 

6  St.  Paul,  Minn 98 . 9 

7  Washington,  D.  C 100.7 

8  San  Francisco,  Cal 104.4 

9  Minneapolis,  Minn 131 . 5 

10  Omaha,  Neb 153-8 

11  Hartford,  Conn 160.3 

12  St.  Louis,  Mo 280. 5 

13  Providence,  R.  1 324. 1 

14  Detroit,  Mich 323.6 

15  Philadelphia,   Pa 390. 1 

16  Baltimore,  Md 425.4 

17  New   York    460. 3 

18  New  Orleans,  La 508.6 

19  Chicago    590  •  4 

Average  of  all 206 . 6 

Going  a  little  deeper  into  this  matter  it  was  found  that  in  a  comparison  Still  worse  for 
with  cities  in  the  United  States,  of  a  population  of   100,000  and  upward, 
Chicago  stood  in  the  limelight  as  No.  32 ! 

This  certainly  is  a  bad  showing  for  the  second  city  in  population,  the   Certainly  a  bad 

J  °  J  r     r  '  showing. 

second  city  in  miles  of  boulevards,  the  seventh  city  in  park  acreage,  and, 
as  some  believe,  the  first  city  in  destined  greatness.  Yet  I  believe  most 
Chicago  people  would  be  surprised  to  learn  that  we  do  not  possess  the  most 
effective  park  system  in  the  United  States. 

Why  is  Chicago  far  Behind? 

Having  found  by  comparison  that  Chicago  needs  a  much  amplified  park  Chicago  needs 

......  .  .  shown. 

system,  let  us  inquire  why  it  is  that  comparatively  little  cities  like  Meriden, 
Connecticut,  Lynn,  Massachusetts,  and  Los  Angeles,  California,  have  more 
recreation  area  for  each  inhabitant  than  Chicago  affords  its  population. 

This  inquiry,  srentlemen,  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  reason  why  we  others  have  out- 

J  lying  preserves. 

are  here  to-day.  Many  of  these  cities  have  outlying  park  preserves.  They 
have  realized  the  need  of  country  and  forest  recreation  area  and  have  pro- 
vided it  before  the  stress  of  an  unsatisfied  population  was  upon  them. 

Cities  with  Outlying  Parks. 

Of  the  nineteen  American  cities,  listed  in  the  foregoing  table,  which   cities  with  outer 
exceed  Chicago  in  the  matter  of  park  area,  the  following  already  have  out-   r 
lying  systems  of  the  acreage  indicated  : 


City    or    Locality.  Acres  Outlying  Parks. 

i  Boston   9,935 

2  Los  Angeles    3,015 

3  Newark,  New  Jersey,  and  environs 2,500 

4  San  Francisco  2,000 

5  Washington    i,775 

6  New  York  1,212 

7  Meriden,  Conn 1 ,000 

8  Lynn,  Mass 802 

9  Minneapolis  and  St.  Paul,  Minn 554 


Records  of  Outer  Park  Work. 


Boston,  Essex 
county,  Lynn, 
etc. 


Localities    plan- 
ning  outer   parks. 


Work   for  New 
York. 


Awake   to    recre- 
ation needs. 


The  records  of  the  work  done  for  outer  parks  in  each  of  these  localities 
have  been  procured  for  this  Commission.  I  would  call  attention  especially 
to  the  superb  system  Boston  has  created,  to  the  notable  development  in 
Essex  county,  New  Jersey,  to  the  great  woods  of  Lynn,  Massachusetts,  and 
to  the  mountain  park  of  Meriden,  Connecticut. 

The  localities  sustaining  outer  park  systems  have  set  a  pace  for  other 
American  cities.  As  a  result  the  following  municipalities  are  perfecting, 
or  considering,  plans  for  outer  preserves  and  parkways. 

Baltimore,  Providence,  Louisville,  Seattle,  Portland,  Oregon ;  Fall 
River,  Harrisburg,  and  Cook  county,  Illinois. 

While  New  York  has  no  outer  reservations  under  its  government  the 
palisades  preserve  is  so  near  at  hand  that  I  have  included  it  as  a  part  of  the 
New  York  system.  The  Essex  county,  New  Jersey,  parks  also  are  near 
enough  to  be  of  service  to  the  people  of  the  Eastern  metropolis,  but  they  are 
treated  separately. 

That  New  York  recognizes  the  need  of  acquiring  wooded  land  for 
recreation  needs  is  shown  in  the  report  of  the  New  York  Commissioners  of 
Parks  for  1902,  under  the  heading  "Richmond  County  Parks,"  as  follows: 


"  With  the  general  idea  of  acquiring  considerable  areas  of  land  for 
future  development  as  public  parks,  attention  has  been  drawn  to  the 
Borough  of  Richmond.  Within  the  boundaries  of  Richmond  County  there 
are  many  tracts  of  land  that  could  be  acquired  at  a  reasonable  value  and 
which  are  especially  fitted  for  development  as  public  parks.  These  tracts 
include  some  of  the  higher  lands  of  the  island,  some  very  fine  forest  lands, 
and,  in  addition,  the  stretches  of  land  along  the  seashore.  The  city  of  New 
York  has  been  extremely  backward  in  the  development  of  public  seaside 
parks." 


Facts    established 
by  the   Gov- 
ernment. 


Practical  Benefits  of  Forests  upon  Populations. 

While  the  public  recognizes  the  practical  value  of  forest  preserves,  per- 
haps this  Commission  desires  information  as  to  the  provable  benefits  which 
wooded  areas  afford  city  populations.  There  are  many  popular  beliefs 
regarding  forests  which  are  not  provable,  but  some  of  the  facts  established 
by  the  experts  in  the  employ  of  the  United  States  government  are : 


That  forests  have  a  beneficial  effect  on  local  climate ;  that  forests  have 
a  local  effect  on  rain  fall  and  upon  vegetable  growths,  although  as  to  rain 
fall  this  is  disputed  in  Germany;  that  forest  floors  are  regulators  of  local 
water  flow,  preventing  alike  flood  and  drouth,  and  also  reducing  the 
amount  of  wind-blown  dust ;  that  forests,  like  lakes,  cause  air  to  circu- 
late; and  that  forest  soil  conditions  are  unfavorable  to  the  existence  of 
disease  germs. 


These  facts,  I  think,  show  that  forests  are  of  practical  value  to  large   Sentimental  value 

recognized. 

populations.     All  persons  recognize  their  sentimental  worth. 


Chicago  Wakens  to  Its  Park  Needs. 

I  have  shown  by  figures  that  our  city  is  much  behind  the  times  in  the  Present  activity, 
matter  of  parks.    However,  there  is  evidence,  in  present  activity,  that  we  are 
rousing  ourselves  to  our  needs. 

Until   April,    1903,    Chicago  was   restrained   from   locating  new   parks   Restricted  by  law. 
where  the  growth  of  the  population  required  them,  because  the  law  pre- 
scribed that  new  parks  could  be  created  only  contiguous  to  existing  parks 
and  boulevards.     That  law  was  amended  by  the  last  Legislature.     A  new 
era  in  local  park  building  is  the  result. 

The  South  Park  Commissioners  are  creating  new  large  and  small  parks,  Expansion  under 

0  °  1  new  law. 

the  West  Chicago  Park  Commissioners  have  located  sites  for  small  parks, 
and  the  Commissioners  of  Lincoln  Park  are  to  add  a  large  area  to  Lincoln 
Park  and  to  buy  land  for  small  parks.  The  total  added  to  the  present 
Chicago  system  is  more  than  nine  hundred  acres,  making  the  park  acreage  of 
Chicago  when  work  now  under  way,  or  contemplated,  is  completed,  3,174 
acres.    This,  as  stated,  is  the  figure  used  in  all  the  foregoing  comparisons. 

I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  Chicasro  intramural  park  system,  with  Outer  areas 

&  ,  needed. 

the  additions  now  under  way,  will  be  large  enough  to  supply  park  needs 
within  the  city,  where  much  that  is  artificial  must  be  introduced  in  public 
recreation  areas.  What  is  needed  to  supplement  this  system  is  the  outer 
preserves  of  forest  and  meadowland  unimproved  by  the  art  of  man. 

Few  of  the  residents  of  this  flat-  and  smoky  city  know  that  near  at  hand   Material  at  hand, 
are  tree-crowned  hills  and  wooded  valleys,  and  rivers  and  pure  air. 

What  we  need  to  do  is  to  acquire  large  tracts  of  these  wooded  lands,  JestrucftTon 
which  nature  has  placed  at  our  doors.  Now  this  outlying  property  is  cheap. 
Soon  it  will  be  dear.  In  a  few  years,  so  rapid  is  the  growth  of  Chicago, 
city  life  will  be  extended  into  these  reservoirs  of  health.  Streets  will  be  laid 
out.  Sewers  will  be  dug.  Acres  will  be  cut  into  building  lots.  Trees  of 
priceless  value  will  be  hewn  down  or  left  to  die  from  lack  of  water,  for  the 
sewers  will  act  as  subsoil  drains. 

In  fact,  the  destruction  of  forest  trees  is  in  progress  hereabouts  to-day. 
Soon  it  will  be  too  late  to  secure  these  tracts  as  wooded  reservations.  The 
art  of  man  never  can  recreate  a  tangled  forest,  if  the  native  trees  have  been 
cut  away. 


with 


Now   the   time   to 
act. 


Boston  Shows  Folly  of  Delay. 

A  sample  of  the  folly  of  delay  is  evidenced  in  the  Boston  movement.   Lessons  irora  th« 
In  the  "  History  of  the  Boston  Metropolitan  Parks,"  published  under  author- 
ity of  the  Boston  Commissioners,  occur  these  paragraphs : 


"  The  Boston  parks  were  examples  of  the  practical  and  aesthetic  needs 
of  cities  and  towns  about  Boston,  which  were  too  short-sighted  to  provide 
open  spaces  for  the  future  when  land  was  cheap  and  plenty,  and  too  poor 
and  weak  to  provide  them  when  land  for  recreation  was  costly  but  sorely 
needed. 

"  At  the  time  of  this  movement  certain  picturesque  tracts  of  wild  land 
north  of  Boston  ....  were  threatened  by  the  advance  of  building 
operations   which  promised   in   a  short   season   to  extend   over  the   entire 


Short-sighted 
municipalities. 


Wild  land  threat- 
ened. 


LO 


Easy  to  obtain 
results. 


region.  At  the  same  period  certain  wild  tracts  south  of  Boston  .... 
were  also  in  jeopardy  at  the  hands  of  private  owners.  Although  the  public 
had  no  right  in  the  territory,  yet,  when  the  people  discovered  that  the 
beauty  of  these  sylvan  tracts  was  to  suffer  serious  injury  and  that  an 
enjoyment  of  one  of  the  natural  resources  of  the  Boston  district  was  to  be 
taken  from  them,  a  popular  outcry  was  aroused. 

"  This  attitude  of  the  community  toward  certain  tracts  of  land  and  its 
favorable  attitude  toward  parks  in  general  will  go  far  to  explain  the  readi- 
ness with  which  a  popular  movement  for  metropolitan  parks  was  begun 
and  the  ease  with  which  its  objects  were  attained." 


Problems  of  the 
city. 


Outdoor   life 

essential. 


Masses  are  tres- 
passers in  forest 
iands. 


City  Life  and  Outdoor  Recreation. 

One  of  the  great  problems  of  the  age  is  the  problem  of  the  city.  Some 
of  the  best  men  in  America  are  trying  to  solve  it.  They  are  the  cause  of 
the  municipal  awakening  which  is  spreading  over  the  country  a  purifying 
and  uplifting  influence.  Among  the  problems  of  the  city  is  the  provision  for 
adequate  recreation  for  the  people.  This  problem  becomes  serious  in  every 
large  city. 

It  is  a  characteristic  of  the  present  strenuous  generation  of  Americans 
that  outdoor  life  and  change  of  scene  and  occupation  are  recognized  as 
essential  to  health  and  happiness  and  progress.  This  is  evidenced  by  the 
love  of  athletics,  by  the  popularity  of  country  clubs,  and  by  the  exodus  of 
the  well-to-do  from  cities  during  the  summer  months. 

While  outdoor  life  and  change  of  scene  and  occupation  are  so  essential, 
what  has  Chicago  done  to  provide  these  blessings  for  the  great  majority  of 
its  cosmopolitan  population,  which,  through  lack  of  means,  is  unable  to  afford 
these  essentials  for  itself  and  its  posterity?  In  fact  the  great  mass  of  our 
population  to-day  is  a  trespasser  when  it  seeks  an  outing  in  near-by  forest 
lands. 


Need  of  reserva- 
tions. 


Population  now 
about  2,000,000 


Future    population 
of   5,000,000. 


Chicago's  Past  and  Prospective  Growth. 

That  we  may  fully  realize  the  need  of  country  reservations  for  our 
population,  let  me  revert  to  the  growth  of  Chicago,  the  causes  thereof  and 
what  within  reason  we  may  expect  of  the  city. 

Chicago,  as  stated,  is  situated  in  a  commercially  strategic  position. 
Early  explorers  recognized  the  site  as  favorable  for  a  large  city.  Sixty- 
seven  years  ago  Chicago  had  grown  from  a  trading-post  to  an  assemblage 
of  4,179  people  and  was  incorporated  as  a  city.  In  1903  it  had  a  population 
of  1,873,880  by  Federal  estimate,  and  by  the  city  directory  estimate  2,231,000. 
It  is  safe  to  fix  the  present  population  at  about  two  million.  There  are  men 
living  here  to-day  who  have  witnessed  this  growth  from  the  early  thirties. 
There  are  men  living  here  to-day  who  took  part  in  the  creation  of  our  present 
park  and  boulevard  system.  They  heard  themselves  ridiculed  as  dreamers. 
Their  parks  were  in  cabbage  patches  remote  from  population  centers  and 
street  car  service.  To-day  they  look  upon  their  dream  work  practically 
completed,  but  inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the  present  population.  Their  so- 
called  fanciful  system  is  outgrown  before  it  is  finished.  Is  not  this  a  forceful 
fact  for  us  to  consider  in  connection  with  our  work? 

It  is  impossible  to  forecast  accurately  the  number  of  people  who  will 
make  their  home  in  Chicago  ten,  twenty  and  fifty  years  from  now.     But  I 


11 

believe  it  conservative  to  state  that  in  the  not  distant  future  our  population 
will  be  at  least  5,000,000.  I  advance  this  statement  on  the  basis  of  the  causes 
that  have  made  Chicago  the  abode  of  about  2,000,000  persons  within  the  span 
of  a  human  life. 

Chicago  is  the  gateway  to  and  from  the  West ;  and  the  great  movement  ^m^r'ceeway  of 
of  commerce  to-day  is  eastward  and  westward.  Chicago  lies  also  between 
the  North  and  the  South.  It  is  the  largest  transportation  center  in  the 
world,  and  the  railroads  have  not  come  here  because  of  free  rights  of  way  and 
tempting  bonuses.  They  have  come  because  Chicago  is  where  it  is.  They 
were  obliged  to  come,  because  the  business  they  sought  was  here.  They 
paid  well  to  get  into  Chicago ;  and  long  ago  they  awoke  to  the  need  of  outer 
belt  lines  and  constructed  them. 

When  the  Panama  canal  is  built  commerce  will  be  increased  srreatly  Growth  as  ship- 

0  J      ping  center. 

north  and  south  through  Chicago.  There  is  no  accurate  method  of  fore- 
casting how  important  our  city  will  become  as  a  shipping  center,  both  by 
rail  and  by  water,  with  this  added  business  to  handle.  There  are  great 
possibilities  for  Chicago  as  the  commercially  strategic  point  both  east  and 
west  and  north  and  south. 

Chicasro  is  convenient  to  timber  belts.     It  is  convenient  to  mines  of  iron   ,Raw,  materiaI  on 

0  hand. 

and  copper  and  coal.  It  is  convenient  to  dairy  lands.  It  is  convenient  to 
wheat  and  cornfields. 

Chicaeo  will  be  not  only  the  traffic  center  of  the  future  America.     Be-  As  a  manufactur- 

&  J  ing  center. 

cause  of  its  location  it  also  will  be  the  manufacturing  center.  Raw  material 
in  increasing  volume  will  be  brought  here  to  be  worked  over.  Finished 
products  in  larger  and  larger  quantities  will  be  shipped  hence  to  the  marts 
of  the  world.  The  present  enormous  volume  of  this  sort  of  business  will 
seem  small  compared  with  that  of  the  future  ;  and  other  lines  of  human 
service  will  grow  in  proportion  to  the  commercial  and  manufacturing 
development. 

As    sagacious    a   man   as   James   J.    Hill,    reviewing   the   prospects    of  \J^  Hllls  Predlc' 
American  trade  with  China,  Japan  and  the  American  colonies,  now  in  its 
infancy,  said  of  the  future  Chicago : 

"  When  the  Pacific  Coast  states  shall  have  a  population  of  20,000,000,  as 
they  will,  then  Chicago  will  be  the  largest  city  in  the  world." 

Problems  of  a  Great  Population. 

While  it  seems  clear  that  our  destiny  to  be  a  very  larsre  city  is  assured  Destiny  and  its 

J  j  a  j  perplexities. 

by  our  position  on  the  map,  as  evidenced  by  past  growth,  what  of  the  tre- 
mendous local  problems  that  will  crowd  themselves  upon  us  for  solution 
with  the  enormous  and  diversified  population  of  the  great  Chicago  of  the 
future  ? 

At  present  more  than  half  of  our  people  are  foreigfn-born  or  born  of   City  of  workins- 

1  x        r  °  men. 

foreign-born  parents.  Chicago  is  a  city  of  workingmen.  This  always  will 
be  so.    We  have  an  extremely  small  so-called  leisure  class. 

Bishop   Charles   P.   Anderson,  of  the   Protestant  Episcopal   diocese  of  \VoJds  of  Bish°P 

r  L  L  Anderson. 

Chicago,  who  is  familiar  with  religious  work  among  the  city  masses,  said  at 
the  great  missionary  meeting  in  the  Auditorium  on  January  7,  1903: 


12 

Epitomizes  mis-  <•  \  ci0  not  think  there  is  a  city  in  the  United  States  that  gathers  up,  as 

it  were,  into  a  single  focus  and  epitomizes  all  the  departments  of  missionary 
activity  so  much  as  our  own  metropolis.  Over  sixty  of  the  world's  races 
and  nationalities  live  within  our  borders.  Over  fifty  per  cent  of  our  people 
are  of  foreign  birth." 

tLecreationUbhc  This  is  a  population  that  by  heredity  is  accustomed  to  recreation  fur- 

nished by  governments.  By  tradition,  as  well  as  by  instinct,  pleasant 
occupation  out  of  working  and  sleeping  hours  is  necessary  for  its  physical 
and  moral  health,  for  its  happiness  and  for  its  contentment. 

Fate  of  many  The  great  bulk  of  the  people,  here  as  elsewhere,  do  not  rise  above  finan- 

in  cities.  ,  . 

cial  mediocrity.  Many  do  not  attain  to  that.  They  are  not  able,  as  individ- 
uals, to  provide  means  of  recreation.  This  is  true  not  only  of  the  emigrant 
from  foreign  shores.  It  also  is  true  of  most  of  the  people  attracted  from 
American  rural  life  to  the  glitter  and  fascination  of  supposed  city  opportunity 
—  of  the  misguided,  who  are  hastening  to  cities,  many  to  spend  their  lives, 
out  of  working  hours,  in  life-sapping  tenements  and  in  the  immoral  influ- 
ences of  the  street  corners,  saloons  and  dance  houses. 

Cause  for  alarm.  The  movement  from  the  country  to  the  city  is  a  cause  for  alarm.    While 

the  well-to-do,  recognizing  the  need  of  pure  air  and  change  of  scene  for  their 
health  and  contentment,  are  seeking  country  life,  vastly  greater  numbers 
are  leaving  a  natural  existence  to  take  up  one  that  is  artificial  and  baneful. 

Causes  of  insan-  It  is  not  surprising  that,  impelled  by  the  desperation  of  misery,  many 

persons  turn  for  solace  to  the  use  of  alcohol  and  to  pleasures  which  open 
the  way  to  destruction.  Liquor  and  the  frequent  result  of  these  so-called 
pleasures  are  the  two  great  causes  of  insanity.  Is  it  to  be  wondered  that 
our  Hospital  for  the  Insane  at  Dunning  is  greatly  overcrowded  to-day,  and 
that  Cook  county's  quotas  in  the  State  Hospitals  are  full  ? 

Crime  and  a  It  is  not  surprisins:,  either,  that  many  city  people  turn  to  crime,  because 

crowded  jail.  .    .  '     . 

of  the  irritating  conditions  surrounding  them.  The  Cook  County  Jail  is  so 
overcrowded  that  our  courts  are  blockaded  with  business. 

The  critical  prob-  How  are  we  then  to  occupy  and  satisfy  this  restrained,  dissatisfied  and 

restless  population,  when  it  is  not  at  work  or  sleeping?  How  are  we  to 
ameliorate  conditions  which  are  fraught  with  danger?  Here  is  a  critical 
problem  which  our  Commission  can  aid  in  solving.  The  government  must 
supply  the  necessity  which  private  individuals  can  not  procure. 

Crowning  park  The  park  boards  of  Chicago  are  doing  much  now  for  the  masses,  but 

the  crowning  park  work  is  to  be  done  by  our  Commission.  We  are  to  pro- 
vide the  future  Chicago  with  what  will  be  one  of  its  greatest  blessings  and 
one  of  its  most  needed  safety  appliances. 

Material  for  Outer  Reservations. 

Ample  material  Fortunately  this  Commission  finds  the  material  at  hand  ample  for  its 

needs.  To  the  east  we  have  Lake  Michigan  with  its  cool  winds,  its  bluffs, 
and  its  natural  bathing  beaches.  To  the  south  are  flats,  lakes  and  a  river. 
To  the  west  is  the  hilly  height  of  land  between  the  basin  of  the  great  lakes 
and  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  river.  Beyond  the  height  of  land  are  the 
wooded  valleys  of  rivers  and  creeks.  To  the  north  are  marshlands  and 
forest-topped  bluffs. 


13 

From  these   bounteous   provisions   of   nature   we   can   create   an  outer  fy3stt1^ctory 
system  of  preserves  and  connecting  parkways  that  will  prove  pleasing  in 
variety  and  that  will  be  filled  with  objects  of  interest.    All  this  is  easily  acces- 
sible by  steam  and  electric  roads  at  low  fares. 

These  lands  should  be  left  in  their  native  state.  They  should  re-  f0unSt"yes  of  the 
ceive  no  artificial  park  treatment.  Residents  of  our  crowded  districts  can 
enjoy  the  pleasures  of  camp  life  there.  They  can  have  boating.  They  can 
fish.  They  can  bathe  and  swim.  They  can  pick  and  eat  the  nuts  and  wild 
fruits.  They  can  gather  the  flowers  of  the  field  and  forest.  They  can  see 
and  hear  the  birds  and  other  forms  of  wild  animal  life.  They  can  be  close 
to  the  heart  of  nature.  They  can  find  rest  from  their  toil,  and  refreshment 
for  work  to  come. 

Above  all,  this  outdoor  area,  when  secured,  will  belong  to  the  masses.   per°pieny  °f  '' 
The  people  will  not  be  trespassers  there,  and  the  areas  dedicated  forever  to 
them  and  their  children  will  be  vaster  than  any  private  individual,  no  matter 
how  rich,  could  afford  to  purchase  and  maintain  for  private  use. 


Formal  Organization  Recommended. 

So  this  Commission,  representing  the  entire  population  of  Cook  county,  Worthy  of  best 

.       .  i-  thought. 

is  committed  to  a  great  task,  one  that  will  require  and  deserve  in  its  perform- 
ance the  best  thought  and  most  earnest  endeavor  of  all  its  members. 

To  you  is  committed  the  work  of  outlining  and  securing  the  necessary   Work  to  be  done. 
legislation   for  the   Outer   Park   district ;    of   evolving  plans   for   providing 
the  necessary  funds  to  create  and  maintain  it ;   and  of  doing  all  other  things 
necessary  to  provide  our  city,  which  seems  destined  to  be  the  greatest  on  this 
continent,  with  recreation  areas  commensurate  with  its  needs. 

That  we  may  advance  this  movement  with  order  and  deliberation  I  Organization, 
would  recommend  that  the  Commission  to-day,  if  its  judgment  approves, 
proceed  to  form  a  temporary  organization  with  chairman  and  secretary,  and 
appoint  a  committee  to  draft  a  plan  for  formal  organization,  such  committee 
to  report  at  a  meeting  to  be  called  at  an  early  date  by  the  chairman  of  the 
said  committee. 


Records  of  the  Commission. 

The  official  record  of  the  creation  of  this  Commission  and  of  the  an-   Records  pre- 

1        served. 

pomtment  of  the  members  thereof,  and  the  data  upon  which  this  message 
was  prepared,  are  preserved  for  the  use  of  your  honorable  body. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Henry  G.  Foreman, 
President  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Cook  County. 


14 


STATISTICAL  TABLES   REGARDING   THE   POPULATION   AND   PARK 
AREAS  OF  CERTAIN  CITIES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Comparative  Populations  of  Four  Large  American  Cities,  1830  to  1903,  Inclusive. 


Year. 

New  York. 

Chicago. 

Philadelphia.                     Boston. 

1830 

202,589 

312,710 

515,547 

805,658 

942,292 

1,206,299 

1,515,301 

3,437,202 

3,716,139 

t40 

14,470 

29,963 

109,260 

298,977 

503,185 

1,099,850 

1,698,575 

1,873,880 

161,410                         61,392 

1840 

1850 

220,423                         93,383 
340,045                        136,881 

1860 

1870 

1880 

569,529                        177,840 
674,022                       250,526 
847,170                          362  839 

1890 

1900 

*1903 

1,046,964 
1,293,697 
1,367,716 

448,477 
560,892 
594,618 

*Pr.  ct.  increase 
1840-1903.  .  .  . 

1,088% 

41,754% 

521% 

537% 

(*)  Census  office  basis  of  computing,  i.  e.,  "  rests  on  assumption  that  the  annual  increase  for  each  year 
since  the  last  census  will  be  one-tenth  of  the  decennial  increase  between  the  last  two  censuses." 

(t)  Colbert's  table  (Andreas,  Volume  I,  page  159)  gives  the  estimated  population  in  1829  as  30,  and  in 
1831  as  60.     No  estimate  is  made  for  1830.     The  population  for  1840  is  also  from  Colbert's  table. 

Note. — In  the  Federal  Census  of  1850  is  a  table  (page  lii,  Table  XXXIV)  of  the  "  Comparative  Population 
of  thirty-two  of  the  largest  cities  in  the  United  States,"  Chicago  is  not  in  the  list.  On  the  same  page  is  the  com- 
parative population  of  "  fifty-six  other  cities  and  towns"  for  1840  and  1850.  Chicago  is  not  even  listed  among 
the  "  other  cities,"  although  it  was  incorporated  in  1837  and  in  1850  had  a  population  (Federal  Census  page 
CVIII)  of  29,963.  The  first  census  taken  in  Chicago  after  its  incorporation  and  in  the  same  year  (1837)  showed 
a  population  of  4,170.     (Andreas,  Vol.  I,  page  179.) 

Population  figures,  not  otherwise  specified,  are  taken  from  Federal  Census  reports. 


Comparative  Table  for  Four  American  Cities  of  Park  Areas  and  Their  Increase;  also  Percentages 

of  Change  of  Acreage  and  Population. 


Acre  Area 

of   Parks 

1880. 

Acre  Area 

of  Parks 

1890. 

Acre  Area 

of  Parks 

1903. 

Increase 
Acre  Area 
18S0-1903. 

Percentum  increase 

Percentum  Change. 

CITY. 

Park  Area 
1SS0-1903. 

*Pop«]ation 
1SS0-1903. 

*NTumber    Inhabitants 

to   Each  Acre  of 

Park  1SS0-1903. 

Philadelphia.  .  .  . 

Chicago 

New  York 

Boston   

2,819 

2,000 
1,007.25 
233 

3,025 
2,006 
5,101 
1,130 

3,503 

3,174 

8,074 

12,878 

684 
1,174 
7,066.75 
12,645 

24.26 

58.70 
701.25 

5,427 

61.46 
272.40 
208.07 

63.88 

Increase    29.93 

134.66 

Decrease   61.57 

97.03 

Totals 

6,059.25 

11,262 

27,629 

21,569.75 

356 

158.68 

43.28 

*  Basis. — Census  office  method  computing  1903  population. 


15 


♦Number  of  Inhabitants  to  each  Acre  of  Total  Park  Areas  in  the  Following  19  Cities  of  United  States. 

1.  Meriden,  Conn 25 . 1 

2.  Los  Angeles,  Cal 31.6 

3.  Lynn,  Mass 34. 6 

4.  Boston,  Mass 46 . 2 

5.  Newark,  Orange  and  East  Orange,  N.  J 88 . 8 

6.  St.  Paul,  Minn 98.9 

7.  Washington,  D.  C 100 . 7 

8.  San  Francisco,  Cal 104 .  4 

9.  Minneapolis,  Minn 131.5 

10.  Omaha,  Neb 153 . 8 

11.  Hartford,  Conn 160 . 3 

Average  of  all  19  Cities  206 . 6 

12.  St.  Louis,  Mo 280.5 

13.  Providence,  R.  I 324. 1 

14.  Detroit,  Mich • '. 325.6 

15.  Philadelphia,  Pa  390.4 

16.  Baltimore,  Md 425 . 4 

17.  New  York,  N.  Y 460.3 

18.  New  Orleans,  La ° 508.6 

19.  Chicago,  111 590.4 


*On  basis  of  population  computed  for  1903  on  Census  office  method. 


CHICAGO— ANALYSIS  OF  PARK  AREAS. 


Present  Areas 

Areas  Being  Acquired. 

Totals. 

Large 
Parks. 

Small 
Parks. 

Boule- 
vards. 

Water. 

Large 
Parks. 

Small 
Parks. 

Boule- 
vards. 

Water. 

Large 
Parks. 

Small 
Parks. 

Boule- 
vards. 

Water. 

SOUTH  PARK. 
Authorities;  1902  report,  page 

19 : 

Acres. 
1,215.66 

Acres. 

Miles. 
17.28 

Acres. 
119.29 

Acres. 

Acres. 

Miles. 

Acres. 

Acres. 
1,865.01 

Acres. 
11.52 

Miles. 
17.28 

Acres. 
119.29 

Blue  Print,  March,  1904. . . . 

649.35 

11.52 

LINCOLN  PARK. 
Authorities ; 

8-12-03  letter  Sec'ty  Warder. 

308.07 

18.62 

7 

57.72 

523.07 

29.72 

7 

57.72 

Citv  Council  proceedings 
2-1-04,  page  2156-7 

215 

11.1 

WEST  PARK. 
Authorities ; 
8-13-03,  Sec'v  Fieldhouse . . . 

592.76 

21.65 

23.144 

60 

592.70 

21.65 

23.144 

60 

Recommended     by     Special 

28 

CITY  PARKS. 
Authority; 
Municipal  Library  Statistics, 
July,  1903 

102 

Totals 

2,116.40 

147.27 

47.424 

237.01 

864.35 

50.62 

2,980.84 

192.89 

47.424 

237.01 

16 


- 

Ph 

w 

■s 

V 

u 

-< 

<D 

r/i 

rt 

— 

- 

r 

s 

H 

'.: 

■-- 

- 

«! 

- 

- 

« 

- 

<t, 

- 

< 

a 

^ 

T3 

?-, 

•< 

- 

= 

- 

:. 

■- 

W 

.' 

~ 

■s 

c 

K 

^ 

^||  "S 

-1 

jf 

i= 

C 

c.S-g'sPQ                        £ 

-a  a,       ^^ 

.2 

I          la     0' 

C 

0  0  t:      >                        — 
■3  1°  so          g    .         P 

5        o"0  ^       0  5  0 

5             0  g,    o-" 

C 

O 

.s*s 

J2  S-s  ..&■§§ 
_|.||gfl-|n 

>, 

^ 

Ph 
bO 

a 
•3 

>  >-,  aw  a 
3u  ■  0  S 

c 
'c 

o 

t-i 

o 
O 

'oPh 

1  - 

Q  > 

v°        J:  !^   :   ;    : 

0  P-J2  0  c  c  c 
£  co  ^  O  0  0  c 

ii.p|-iii-!::iii:iii.f 

-   c 

0 

to 

o.t;  ^  d  fl  fl  e 

^fcc>OOP-<  |  |  s^  a  J 

xi  S-^^  >^  ™ok  0^: 

^M  0  >OS S 

^  <u                     ooc^c- 

0  c 

.-Sod           — :  n 

OP3                    OOOP^OC: 

ot 

OPhhh             £-Ch 

fcinO 

O 

£  ^  "ir  —  S  tb 

"loci                   __ 

O 

0 

r- 

OO 

COCC  CO 

r—           co 

-<& 

-r 

coco 

CO  CO 

co           r~ 
Cl             us 

cq 

"rt  -e  o^;~ 

rf 

"    Sf-O   £    U 

O  -r}-  -+<                                   CO 

oor- 

t— <  t- 

Cl  10 

Cl  iC 

CO 

.£ 

°    ?    ~  ~rt  ~£ 

2      co                    *~ ' 

ci 

■<* 

CO 

1—1 

CM 

t: 

^^        l 

S 

3 

■a  s  .9  §j  s 

CI 

»o 

1   M 

c 

!     1 

o 

O     cd 

1 

>-i-s 

JJJ  -#  Cl                           O 

cor- 

WC^ 

~-<  b- 

CIO 

Cl  iC 

/ 

CO 

PC 

s«£ 

cq 

TP 

CO 

-* 

"^ 

u 

w 

~t"  Cl                           OMOOiC- 

COCO        COOC*              i-H-* 

U3  OS  C— 

CO 

Pm 

30H  2^ 

lOCO                           lOOH-fHif 

coco        O  CO  O              -+1  -f 

~    S     - 

— 

Cl  -#                           Cl  -O  CO  CO  CO  c 

OCT 

-0  >.o  OS             CI  cz> 

/-.  —  - 

cr 

O 

■«#                                          WlH                  -H 

m 

-tH  CO                  COh 

Cl         r-( 

Cl 

■g'-i 

-f  CO                                        ^HO'~' 

O 

qO 

Ci 

CO             coco 

CO-* 

C* 

a 

0 

00                    00  0  --O 

CO 

^ 

CO 

r-            csr— 

OCO 

CI  Tf                                         O-tCO 

'■- 

0 

Tt< 

Cl                Oi-h 

c  1  0 

O 

CO 

Ph 

i-O                                     CCt-h 

U3 

-cH 

-H                COi-H 

CO^H 

1  - 

•  cico                    '— <  co  r~ co  co cj 

1-HOC 

-t4  CO  CO                CI  i-H 

COO-— ' 

■* 

o 

3 

^-tr~                    lo  -+  co  —  nc 

0  -+ 

NffiO              CO  — 1 

'j>C  -t  — 

r  ■ 

Oi 

CT> 

£c-3oo                        ©lONOCC 

uau: 

0  10  »c           »o  -+ 

HNO 

CO 

o 

«  1-^*  N                                            CO*  N  i-H  I- 

CO 

CO        CO                    CO* 

Cl  — "cf 

c*. 

1 

H 

<              >-■ 

10 

rt 

10 

lOCl  Tf  C 

^-c 

ca 

O 

OiC 

-K 

£  <"J>  M 

CO 

hOMC 

^hC 

— 

Cl  f» 

0 

Jc^c 

OS 

oco-^  c 

>-o 

CI 

3 

—  r- 

CO. 

Ph 

< 

a> 

co"            i— 

c- 

Cl" 

t~* 

CM 

k,  ™ 

.  i-H  d                           (MOOCCM^ 

CO 

OOO                  H  O 

cooa  -f 

:•' 

0 

>.  JS    d>     o  -^ 

»  ^  IO                                        t-                     i-t  Tf 

iO 

CI  CM  i-h                CI  O 

CO  i-O  — 

~ 

CO 

<1 

CO 

» 

■  CO'— 1                           CTiO-^dO 

■>#  cc 

CI  CO  -V-                t-<  i-H 

r~--— 1  ci 

l« 

/    /:  ~                     t- — khmo 

CI  -* 

-*  r-  'X)           co  ci 

— -  -0  -1 

y 

0 

s|o^ 

£  '-'  l>-                           COiONW-h 

U3C 

x-  co  »o  CO            10  CO 

-— 1  -rf  O 

r 

?  J 

<""" 

CO*"        CO                       i-H 

«i-T«-* 

CN 

0 

CO 

2     "3  S>J, 

Sjj     .So. 

co  »                    co  co  -+i  DC'-ri  cr 

>-0  »-0 

QCC               C)  C3S 

CCON 

— 

1— <  —■                              lO  CO  0 1  —  "/ 

cj  ec 

COCO    l-H                          COr-. 

r-^  cc  — 

■'■ 

CO  CO                              OQOhWhC 

rHrHf-                  ^.Cl_ 

Cl  0  c  1 

oc 

00 

i-TtjT                    <r."t^-"odc-f-hir 

0  u: 

CDrHN                CO  lO 

ci'ci'ro" 

c*- 

0" 

ro  ~                       ocohnh? 

Oi- 

i-H  OS  CO                  CO  lO 

HSO 

t-- 

CO 

1C1O                              CO         ^H         CJ 

."OCO 

r—       co            i-H  co 

CH!M 

X 

CM 

CO         — " 

& 
o 
Ph 

^    s3» 

1—1 

"CCO   " 

OfO                      ooc? 

r 

0 

0 

O                OO 

O  C5 

— 

O  CO                        O  C'  0 

- 

CT) 

CO 

CO           coco 

0  z 

— 

fi'g 

O^H                      oco 
o'co"                  o'o'lo 

3 
0 

O 
O 

OS_ 

co" 

0          00 
0"          0'  0 

O  CO' 

do* 

~ 

J  si 

100                      10  coco 

iC 

O 

00 

CO              CCO 

0  r- 

: 

O  CO                           CO        1— 1 

<M 

CO 

iO_              .-h  -cT 

c->-h 

Uj    O     t- 

CO" 

Cs 

Wig 

•-; 

2 

3 

>, 

- 

CD 

£ 

2 

'/ 

M 

01 

_ 

~ 

*H 

o 

1-1 

o 
_>> 
o 

J 

"c 

c 

c 

C 
t 

6 

< 

- 

IS  e 

W  c 

1 

c 

— 

t- 
c 

- 
— 

C 
1 

.         p: 

g 

c 

- 

Pi 

c 

bC 

2 

C 
C 

C3 

"rt  0                        v  rt  0  P.-_z  i 

pqpq                   OXh^hISS 

Z2 

1  s: 

Z  O  Ph             Ph  CQ 

i 

HW                                   CO'tfU^COt—OC 

(35C 

hnco            -^  uo 

CNCO 

r 

1 

z 

fill 
§  I  «  g 

o       CJ     -—       t- 


Pc/7 

:    '  RE 


Officers  and  Committees 

(SELECTED  JULY  12,  1904) 


President Henry  G.  Foreman 

Vice-President Daniel  H.  Burnham 

Second  Vice-President Ernst  F.  Herrmann 

Treasurer John  J.  Mitchell 

Auditor William  Best 

Secretary William  C.  Graves 


Executive  Committee 

E.  A.  Cummings  C-rter  H.  Harrison 

Charles  L.  Hutchinson  E.iNiel  H.  Burnham 

William  Best 


Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 

Lyman  A.  Walton  John  J.  Mitchell 

Jefferson  Hodgkins  Edwin  K.  Walker 

Francis  T.  Simmons 


Committee  on  Legislation 

Frederick  H.  Gansbergen  Peter  S.  Grosscup 

John  P.  Wilson  John  Barton  Payne 

Fred  A.  Bangs  Ernst  F.  Herrmann 
Joseph  E.  Flanagan 


Committee  on  Plans 

Daniel  H.  Burnham  Dwight  H.  Perkins 

William  Best  E.  A.  Cummings 

August  C.  Boeber 


Committee  on  County,  City  and  Park  Relations 

John  J.  Bradley  Joseph  Carolan 

James  H.  Hirsch  Edward  H.  Peters 

Luther  P.  Friestedt 


Committee  on  Rules 

Dr.  John  B.  Murphy  Lyman  A.  Walton 

William  H.  Miller  Daniel  V.  Harkin 

Dwight  H.  Perkins 


